pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.02294 · v2 · submitted 2024-03-04 · 🪐 quant-ph

Empirical learning of dynamical decoupling on quantum processors

Christopher Tong , Helena Zhang , Bibek Pokharel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords dynamical decouplingquantum error suppressiongenetic algorithmsuperconducting qubitsempirical optimizationmirror randomized benchmarkingGHZ state preparationBernstein-Vazirani algorithm
0
0 comments X

The pith

A genetic algorithm can learn dynamical decoupling sequences that suppress errors more effectively than standard methods on quantum hardware.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that a genetic algorithm-inspired search can tailor dynamical decoupling pulse sequences to the noise of specific quantum processors and circuits. On IBM superconducting qubits the learned sequences reduced errors more than canonical DD sequences, with the relative gain growing as circuits increased in size and complexity. The method was demonstrated on mirror randomized benchmarking with 100 qubits, GHZ state preparation with 50 qubits, and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm with 27 qubits. Search time stayed constant with circuit width and depth, the resulting sequences remained stable without retraining, and sequences trained on small sub-circuits transferred to larger ones.

Core claim

We use a genetic algorithm-inspired search to optimize DD (GADD) strategies for IBM's superconducting-qubit based quantum processors. In all observed experimental settings, we find that empirically learned DD strategies significantly improve error suppression relative to canonical sequences, with relative improvement increasing with problem size and circuit sophistication. We leverage this to study mirror randomized benchmarking on 100 qubits, GHZ state preparation on 50 qubits, and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm on 27 qubits. We further demonstrate that our empirical learning method finds strategies, in time constant with increasing circuit width and depth, that provide stable performance

What carries the argument

GADD, a genetic algorithm-inspired search that empirically evaluates and evolves DD pulse sequences on the target device and circuit.

If this is right

  • Learned sequences improve mirror randomized benchmarking on 100 qubits.
  • Learned sequences improve GHZ state preparation on 50 qubits.
  • Learned sequences improve the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm on 27 qubits.
  • Effective sequences are found in time independent of circuit width and depth.
  • Sequences trained on small sub-circuits generalize to larger circuits and remain stable without retraining.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Device-specific noise may be better countered by learned sequences than by any fixed universal sequence.
  • The constant-time search suggests the method could be run routinely inside quantum compilation pipelines.
  • Training on sub-structures may scale the approach to systems beyond current hardware sizes.
  • Similar empirical search could be applied to other low-overhead error-suppression protocols.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains arise because the learned sequences better match the device's actual noise spectrum rather than from statistical fluctuation or overfitting to the training calibration.

What would settle it

Applying the same learned sequences after a major device recalibration or time gap and finding no sustained advantage over canonical sequences would falsify the claim of stable generalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.02294 by Bibek Pokharel, Christopher Tong, Helena Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart for searching effective DD strategies using the genetic algorithm. After (a) identifying the motif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Success probability for the Bernstein-Vazirani circuit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Persistence of learned sequences over time. Empirical learning on the 50-qubit GHZ state preparation circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transferability of empirically learned sequences between devices. When empirically learning on the 50-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training and target circuits for (a) Clifford and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mirror randomized benchmarking results on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The GADD algorithm with C = 1 was used to explore the space of DD strategies on G = {Ip, Im, Xp, Xm, Yp, Ym, Zp, Zm} with utility functions assigned uniformly at random to all strategies in the case of the example uniform starting population and 25 different randomly selected populations of L = 8 strategies. At each iteration, all pairs of DD strategies underwent reproduction to characterize the number of … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) 5-qubit Grover’s algorithm’s success probabilities averaged over all 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dynamical decoupling (DD) is a low-overhead method for quantum error suppression. Despite extensive work in DD design, finding pulse sequences that optimally decouple computational qubits on noisy quantum hardware is not well understood. In this work, we describe how learning algorithms can empirically tailor DD strategies for any quantum circuit and device. We use a genetic algorithm-inspired search to optimize DD (GADD) strategies for IBM's superconducting-qubit based quantum processors. In all observed experimental settings, we find that empirically learned DD strategies significantly improve error suppression relative to canonical sequences, with relative improvement increasing with problem size and circuit sophistication. We leverage this to study mirror randomized benchmarking on 100 qubits, GHZ state preparation on 50 qubits, and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm on 27 qubits. We further demonstrate that our empirical learning method finds strategies, in time constant with increasing circuit width and depth, that provide stable performance over long periods of time without retraining and generalize to larger circuits when trained on small sub-circuit structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces GADD, a genetic algorithm to empirically optimize dynamical decoupling (DD) pulse sequences for IBM superconducting quantum processors. It reports that learned sequences outperform canonical DD in error suppression on mirror randomized benchmarking (100 qubits), GHZ preparation (50 qubits), and Bernstein-Vazirani (27 qubits), with relative gains increasing with circuit size and complexity. The work further claims that the learned strategies remain stable over long periods without retraining and generalize from small sub-circuits to larger ones.

Significance. If the central empirical claims hold, the result is significant because it supplies a practical, hardware-tailored route to DD optimization that demonstrably scales to 100-qubit circuits on real devices and exhibits claimed long-term stability and sub-circuit generalization. The use of multiple distinct algorithmic tasks and direct hardware measurements constitutes a concrete strength; reproducible experimental protocols would further strengthen the contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and Methods sections] Results and Methods sections: the manuscript provides no explicit description of the temporal or calibration separation between the genetic-algorithm training executions and the subsequent evaluation runs used to claim long-term stability and generalization. Without this separation (or independent calibrations and statistical controls), the headline claim that improvements arise from better noise-spectrum matching rather than fitting to a transient device state cannot be verified and is load-bearing for the generalization assertions.
  2. [Experimental details (throughout §4–§6)] Experimental details (throughout §4–§6): the number of shots per circuit, the presence or absence of post-selection or other mitigation, and the statistical tests or error-bar methodology used to establish that learned-DD improvements are significant are not reported. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the quantitative comparisons that underpin the central claim of increasing relative improvement with problem size.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels would benefit from explicit statement of the number of independent runs and the precise metric (e.g., process fidelity, survival probability) being plotted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of experimental reporting needed to support our claims on long-term stability and generalization. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to enhance clarity and reproducibility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results and Methods sections] Results and Methods sections: the manuscript provides no explicit description of the temporal or calibration separation between the genetic-algorithm training executions and the subsequent evaluation runs used to claim long-term stability and generalization. Without this separation (or independent calibrations and statistical controls), the headline claim that improvements arise from better noise-spectrum matching rather than fitting to a transient device state cannot be verified and is load-bearing for the generalization assertions.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit description of the temporal and calibration separation is essential to substantiate the stability and generalization claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection in the Methods section detailing the exact timeline (including dates and any intervening calibrations) between GADD training executions and all subsequent evaluation runs for the mirror randomized benchmarking, GHZ, and Bernstein-Vazirani experiments. This will enable verification that observed improvements stem from noise-spectrum matching rather than transient device states. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental details (throughout §4–§6)] Experimental details (throughout §4–§6): the number of shots per circuit, the presence or absence of post-selection or other mitigation, and the statistical tests or error-bar methodology used to establish that learned-DD improvements are significant are not reported. These omissions directly affect the reliability of the quantitative comparisons that underpin the central claim of increasing relative improvement with problem size.

    Authors: We acknowledge these omissions limit the ability to fully assess the statistical reliability of the reported improvements. In the revised manuscript, we will expand Sections 4–6 (and the Methods) to explicitly report: (i) the number of shots per circuit for each experiment, (ii) whether post-selection or other error mitigation was applied, and (iii) the precise statistical tests and error-bar methodology (e.g., bootstrapping or standard error) used to establish significance of the learned-DD gains relative to canonical sequences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct hardware measurements

full rationale

The paper reports experimental outcomes from running a genetic algorithm on quantum hardware to optimize DD pulse sequences, then measuring error suppression on circuits of varying size. All performance claims are grounded in observed error rates under learned versus canonical sequences, with no intervening mathematical derivation, model fitting, or prediction step that could reduce to the inputs by construction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing elements in the provided text. The method is self-contained as an empirical search-and-measure procedure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work introduces no new physical entities or free parameters in a theoretical derivation; it relies on standard quantum mechanics, the existence of controllable pulse hardware, and the assumption that noise can be suppressed by DD. The genetic algorithm itself contains tunable hyperparameters (population size, mutation rate, fitness function) that are chosen but not counted as load-bearing free parameters for the central claim.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dynamical decoupling pulses can suppress decoherence on superconducting qubits when timed appropriately to the noise spectrum.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for why learned sequences improve performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1339 out tokens · 23436 ms · 2026-05-24T02:45:36.957118+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Set pulse at splice position to satisfy constraint on space

    work page

  2. [2]

    Choose random splice locationXYIZXZIYYIIZZXXY XYIZXZIYYIIZZXXY XYIZ?XXYZIYYIIZ?

    work page

  3. [3]

    Generate offspring by exchanging pulses (h) Reproduction from the selected fraction

    work page

  4. [4]

    Change one gene in random position in offspring(i) Mutation XYIZYXXYXZIZY?XY2. Choose random location to satisfy multiplication to IXZIZYIXY (j) New strategy populationP’11P’12… P’1LG’11G’12… G’1LB’11B’12… B’1L...P’3K1P’3K2… P’3KLG’3K1G’K2… G’3KLB’3K1B’3K2… B’3KL (k) Upon GADD convergence, identify highest utility strategy and apply to all motif instances...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,” Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,

    Lorenza Viola and Seth Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733–2744 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Using parity kicks for decoher- ence control,

    D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, “Using parity kicks for decoher- ence control,” Physical Review A 59, 4178–4186 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Symmetrizing evolutions,

    P. Zanardi, “Symmetrizing evolutions,” Physics Letters A 258, 77–82 (1999)

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments,

    H. Y. Carr and E. M. Purcell, “Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments,” Phys. Rev. 94, 630–638 (1954)

    work page 1954

  10. [10]

    Modified spin-echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times,

    Saul Meiboom and David Gill, “Modified spin-echo method for measuring nuclear relaxation times,” Review of scientific instruments 29, 688–691 (1958)

    work page 1958

  11. [11]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory,

    P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quan- tum computer memory,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493–R2496 (1995)

    work page 1995

  12. [12]

    Error correcting codes in quantum the- ory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum the- ory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793–797 (1996)

    work page 1996

  13. [13]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    P. Shor, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation,” in Pro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (1996) pp. 56–65

    work page 1996

  14. [14]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Combining dy- namical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation,

    H. K. Ng, D. A. Lidar, and J. Preskill, “Combining dy- namical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 012305 (2011)

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits,

    B. Pokharel, N. Anand, B. Fortman, and D. A. Lidar, “Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits,” Physical Re- view Letters 121, 220502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey,

    Nic Ezzell, Bibek Pokharel, Lina Tewala, Gregory Quiroz, and Daniel A. Lidar, “Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 064027 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a supercon- ducting quantum computing system,

    Petar Jurcevic, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Lev S Bishop, Isaac Lauer, Daniela F Bogorin, Markus Brink, Lauren Capel- luto, Oktay G¨ unl¨ uk, Toshinari Itoko, Naoki Kanazawa, Abhinav Kandala, George A Keefe, Kevin Krsulich, William Landers, Eric P Lewandowski, Douglas T Mc- Clure, Giacomo Nannicini, Adinath Narasgond, Hasan M Nayfeh, Emily Pritchett, Mary Beth Rot...

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a sur- face code logical qubit,

    G. Q. AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a sur- face code logical qubit,” Nature 614, 676–681 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competi- tive expectation values,

    Y. Kim, C. J. Wood, T. J. Yoder, S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, “Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competi- tive expectation values,” Nat. Phys. 19, 752–759 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature 618, 500–505 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Experimental Uhrig dynamical decoupling using trapped ions,

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, “Experimental Uhrig dynamical decoupling using trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. A 79, 062324 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Preserving electron spin coherence in solids by optimal dynamical decoupling,

    J. Du, X. Rong, N. Zhao, Y. Wang, J. Yang, and R. B. Liu, “Preserving electron spin coherence in solids by optimal dynamical decoupling,” Nature 461, 1265– 1268 (2009)

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath,

    G de Lange, ZH Wang, D Riste, VV Dobrovitski, and R Hanson, “Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath,” Science 330, 60–63 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Comparison of dynamical decoupling pro- tocols for a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond,

    Z. Wang, G. de Lange, D. Rist` e, R. Hanson, and V. V. Dobrovitski, “Comparison of dynamical decoupling pro- tocols for a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 155204 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Improving the coherence properties of solid-state spin ensembles via optimized dynamical decoupling,

    D Farfurnik, A Jarmola, LM Pham, ZH Wang, VV Do- brovitski, RL Walsworth, D Budker, and N Bar- Gill, “Improving the coherence properties of solid-state spin ensembles via optimized dynamical decoupling,” in Quantum Optics, Vol. 9900 (SPIE, 2016) pp. 111–120

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Arbitrarily accurate pulse sequences for robust dynamical decoupling,

    G. T. Genov, D. Schraft, N. V. Vitanov, and T. Half- mann, “Arbitrarily accurate pulse sequences for robust dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 133202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Robust dynamical decoupling of quantum systems with bounded controls,

    L. Viola and E. Knill, “Robust dynamical decoupling of quantum systems with bounded controls,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 037901 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup for an abelian hidden subgroup problem,

    P. Singkanipa, V. Kasatkin, Z. Zhou, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, “Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup for an abelian hidden subgroup problem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07934 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Better-than- classical grover search via quantum error detec- tion and suppression,

    B. Pokharel and D.A. Lidar, “Better-than- classical grover search via quantum error detec- tion and suppression,” npj Quantum Inf 10 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-023-00794-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00794-6 2024

  31. [31]

    Demonstration of algo- rithmic quantum speedup,

    B. Pokharel and D. A. Lidar, “Demonstration of algo- rithmic quantum speedup,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 210602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Suppression of crosstalk in super- conducting qubits using dynamical decoupling,

    V. Tripathi, H. Chen, M. Khezri, K. Yip, E. Levenson- Falk, and D. A. Lidar, “Suppression of crosstalk in super- conducting qubits using dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024068 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,

    Z. Zhou, R. Sitler, Y. Oda, K. Schultz, and G. Quiroz, “Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 210802 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Dissipative dynamics of graph-state stabilizers with su- perconducting qubits,

    Liran Shirizly, Gr´ egoire Misguich, and Haggai Landa, “Dissipative dynamics of graph-state stabilizers with su- perconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 010601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Dynam- ically generated decoherence-free subspaces and subsys- tems on superconducting qubits,

    Gregory Quiroz, Bibek Pokharel, Joseph Boen, Lina Tewala, Vinay Tripathi, Devon Williams, Lian-Ao Wu, Paraj Titum, Kevin Schultz, and Daniel Lidar, “Dynam- ically generated decoherence-free subspaces and subsys- tems on superconducting qubits,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 097601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

    Philip Krantz, Morten Kjaergaard, Fei Yan, Terry P Or- lando, Simon Gustavsson, and William D Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Predicting non-markovian superconducting-qubit dynamics from tomographic re- construction,

    Haimeng Zhang, Bibek Pokharel, EM Levenson- Falk, and Daniel Lidar, “Predicting non-markovian superconducting-qubit dynamics from tomographic re- construction,” Physical Review Applied 17, 054018 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,

    A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,” Nature 567, 491– 495 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors,

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, “Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors,” Na- ture Physics , 1–6 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Error mit- igation for short-depth quantum circuits,

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mit- igation for short-depth quantum circuits,” Physical Re- view Letters 119, 180509 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers,

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, “Scalable mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers,” PRX Quantum 2, 040326 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Model- free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values,

    E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, “Model- free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values,” Physical Review A 105, 032620 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Scalable measurement error mitigation via iterative bayesian unfolding,

    B. Pokharel, S. Srinivasan, G. Quiroz, and B. Boots, “Scalable measurement error mitigation via iterative bayesian unfolding,” Physical Review Research6, 013187 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Efficient quantum readout-error mitigation for sparse measure- ment outcomes of near-term quantum devices,

    Bo Yang, Rudy Raymond, and Shumpei Uno, “Efficient quantum readout-error mitigation for sparse measure- ment outcomes of near-term quantum devices,” Physical Review A 106, 012423 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    A deep learning model for noise prediction on near-term quantum devices,

    A. Zlokapa and A. Gheorghiu, “A deep learning model for noise prediction on near-term quantum devices,” (2020), arXiv:2005.10811

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Adapt: Mitigating idling errors in qubits via adaptive dynami- cal decoupling,

    P. Das, S. Tannu, S. Dangwal, and M. Qureshi, “Adapt: Mitigating idling errors in qubits via adaptive dynami- cal decoupling,” in MICRO-54: 54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (2021) pp. 950–962

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    VAQEM: A Variational Approach to Quantum Er- ror Mitigation,

    G. K. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Gokhale, A. Mari, N. Earnest, A. Javadi-Abhari, and F. T. Chong, “VAQEM: A Variational Approach to Quantum Er- ror Mitigation,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) (2022) pp. 288–303

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Optimized dynamical de- coupling via genetic algorithms,

    G. Quiroz and D. A. Lidar, “Optimized dynamical de- coupling via genetic algorithms,” Physical Review A 88, 052306 (2013)

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Creating decoherence-free sub- spaces using strong and fast pulses,

    L. Wu and D. A. Lidar, “Creating decoherence-free sub- spaces using strong and fast pulses,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 207902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  50. [50]

    Review of decoherence-free subspaces, noiseless subsystems, and dynamical decoupling,

    D. A. Lidar, “Review of decoherence-free subspaces, noiseless subsystems, and dynamical decoupling,” in Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry 13 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014) Chap. 11, pp. 295–354

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    For a decoupling group of size |G| and pulse sequences of length L, there are |G|+L−2 |G|−1 equivalence classes of DD sequences with distinct U(T ) operators when neglecting contributions to the effective system-bath Hamiltonian of O(τ 2) and higher. This result arises from counting the number of ways that the L−1 intervals where the system evolves under ...

    work page

  52. [52]

    Measuring the capabilities of quan- tum computers,

    T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Measuring the capabilities of quan- tum computers,” Nature Physics 18, 75–79 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  54. [54]

    Reeves and J

    C. Reeves and J. E. Rowe, Genetic algorithms: principles and perspectives: a guide to GA theory , Vol. 20 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2002)

    work page 2002

  55. [55]

    Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999)

    M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999)

    work page 1999

  56. [56]

    Im and Ip both act as the identity element, although Im is included for purposes of group structure

    work page

  57. [57]

    Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits,

    C. Chamberland, G. Zhu, T. J. Yoder, J. B. Hertzberg, and A. W. Cross, “Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits,” Phys. Rev. X 10, 011022 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    To impose that such allocations of identity operations indeed lead to distinct staggerings, the DD sequence as- sociated with the first color in the strategy has the pulse sequence placed uniformly between the operations defin- ing the start and end of the idle period, while the second receives an asymmetric sequence with a pulse at the ear- liest time on...

    work page

  59. [59]

    Polak, Optimization: algorithms and consistent ap- proximations, Vol

    E. Polak, Optimization: algorithms and consistent ap- proximations, Vol. 124 (Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2012)

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    Pulse vari- ational quantum eigensolver on cross-resonance-based hardware,

    D. J. Egger, C. Capecci, B. Pokharel, P. K. Barkoutsos, L. E. Fischer, L. Guidoni, and I. Tavernelli, “Pulse vari- ational quantum eigensolver on cross-resonance-based hardware,” Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033159 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Learning how to dynamically decouple,

    Arefur Rahman, Daniel J. Egger, and Christian Arenz, “Learning how to dynamically decouple,” (2024), 2405.08689

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Quantum complexity the- ory,

    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum complexity the- ory,” in Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM sym- posium on Theory of computing (1993) pp. 11–20

    work page 1993

  63. [63]

    Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing,

    T. Lubinski, S. Johri, P. Varosy, J. Coleman, L. Zhao, J. Necaise, C. H. Baldwin, K. Mayer, and T. Proc- tor, “Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Transport implementation of the Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,

    S. Fallek, C. Herold, B. McMahon, K. Maller, K. Brown, and J. Amini, “Transport implementation of the Bernstein–Vazirani algorithm with ion qubits,” New Journal of Physics 18, 083030 (2016)

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer,

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J. Chen, N. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, et al. , “Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer,” Nature Communications 10, 5464 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Qiskit Research,

    The Qiskit Research developers and contributors, “Qiskit Research,” (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Experimental benchmarking of an automated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms,

    P. S. Mundada, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, Y. Wang, T. Merkh, T. Stace, F. Nielson, A. R. Carvalho, M. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, et al. , “Experimental benchmarking of an automated deterministic error-suppression workflow for quantum algorithms,” Physical Review Applied 20, 024034 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Daniel A Lidar and Todd A Brun, Quantum error cor- rection (Cambridge university press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    Going beyond bell’s theorem,

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and An- ton Zeilinger, “Going beyond bell’s theorem,” in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Uni- verse, edited by Menas Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72

    work page 1989

  70. [70]

    Quantum secret sharing,

    Mark Hillery, Vladim´ ır Buˇ zek, and Andr´ e Berthiaume, “Quantum secret sharing,” Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829–1834 (1999)

    work page 1999

  71. [71]

    All-photonic architecture for scalable quantum computing with greenberger-horne-zeilinger states,

    Srikrishna Omkar, Seok-Hyung Lee, Yong Siah Teo, Seung-Woo Lee, and Hyunseok Jeong, “All-photonic architecture for scalable quantum computing with greenberger-horne-zeilinger states,” PRX Quantum 3, 030309 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    High-photon-loss threshold quan- tum computing using ghz-state measurements,

    Brendan Pankovich, Angus Kan, Kwok Ho Wan, Maike Ostmann, Alex Neville, Srikrishna Omkar, Adel Sohbi, and Kamil Br´ adler, “High-photon-loss threshold quan- tum computing using ghz-state measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050604 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Multi-partite quantum cryptographic protocols with noisy GHZ states

    Kai Chen and Hoi-Kwong Lo, “Multi-partite quantum cryptographic protocols with noisy ghz states,” (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0404133 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  74. [74]

    Generation of multicomponent atomic schr¨ odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits,

    Chao Song, Kai Xu, Hekang Li, Yu-Ran Zhang, Xu Zhang, Wuxin Liu, Qiujiang Guo, Zhen Wang, Wenhui Ren, Jie Hao, Hui Feng, Heng Fan, Dongning Zheng, Da-Wei Wang, H. Wang, and Shi-Yao Zhu, “Generation of multicomponent atomic schr¨ odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits,” Science 365, 574–577 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aay0600

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay0600 2019

  75. [75]

    Real- izing the nishimori transition across the error thresh- old for constant-depth quantum circuits,

    Edward H. Chen, Guo-Yi Zhu, Ruben Verresen, Alireza Seif, Elisa B¨ aumer, David Layden, Nathanan Tanti- vasadakarn, Guanyu Zhu, Sarah Sheldon, Ashvin Vish- wanath, Simon Trebst, and Abhinav Kandala, “Real- izing the nishimori transition across the error thresh- old for constant-depth quantum circuits,” (2023), arXiv:2309.02863 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Scal- able and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes,

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, “Scal- able and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes,” Physical Review Letters 106, 180504 (2011)

    work page 2011

  77. [77]

    Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, “Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,” Physical Review A 85, 042311 (2012)

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    Scalable random- ized benchmarking of quantum computers using mirror circuits,

    T. Proctor, S. Seritan, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, “Scalable random- ized benchmarking of quantum computers using mirror circuits,” Physical Review Letters 129, 150502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Demonstrating scalable randomized benchmarking of universal gate sets,

    J. Hines, M. Lu, R. K. Naik, A. Hashim, J. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kriekebaum, D. I. Santiago, S. Ser- itan, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Young, I. Siddiqi, B. Whaley, and T. Proctor, “Demonstrating scalable randomized benchmarking of universal gate sets,” Phys. Rev. X 13, 041030 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Bench- marking quantum processor performance at scale,

    David C McKay, Ian Hincks, Emily J Pritchett, Malcolm Carroll, Luke CG Govia, and Seth T Merkel, “Bench- marking quantum processor performance at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05933 (2023). 14

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.